5 ms·
I understand the difference, and chose my words intentionally. What evidence do you have that the purpose of the high speed rail project is primarily for commut
by jdlshore 3y ago
I understand the difference, and chose my words intentionally. What evidence do you have that the purpose of the high speed rail project is primarily for commuting to and from work? I’d be willing to wager that the actual report (which I haven’t read) probably names a variety of reasons for high speed rail in the PNW, of which commuting is one of many.
Setting your passive aggressive pedantry aside, you haven’t answered the question: how would you like the government to prevent commuting in the PNW? And—now that we’re focusing on just one form of travel—how much do you expect that will reduce the demand for travel, and how will that reduction change the desirability of high-speed rail?
- 23B1 3y agoDid you RTFA? The cited UW report is entirely about commuters. If you want to visit granny in Portland, take a car no problem. If a Seattle exec needs to meet with his dev team in Olympia once a week, make it a zoom.
- jdlshore 3y agoThe actual report is here. It’s quite readable: https://mic.comotion.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Keeping-it-on-the-Tracks-High-speed-Rail-Success-and-Lessons-Learned.pdf https://mic.comotion.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Keepi... The word “commuter” appears 19 times, always in the context of “local commuter rail,” in contrast to the high speed rail the report discusses. High speed rail is very clearly described as a metro-to-metro solution, in competition with air travel. Commuting is not the stated purpose. The stated purpose is to “overcome long-term problems of affordable housing, traffic congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions.”
- 23B1 3y ago[flagged]
- mynameisvlad 3y agoThey clearly did read it. And the actual report, which is the thing that really matters. You clearly have not, on the other hand. Nor do you have the most basic understanding of the purpose of HSR, which you wouldn’t even need to read the report to know. It’s ok to say “I’m wrong”, you know. > Let me ask you a different question, since you brought up air travel; what sort of ticket/buyer do you think accounts for the bulk of domestic airlines' revenues? It sure isn’t commuting if that’s what you’re getting at. https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/media_root/document/Research_Fact-Sheet_US-Travel-and-Tourism-Overview.pdf https://www.ustravel.org/system/files/media_root/document/Re... -> “Leisure travel accounted for over 80% of domestic travel” https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers-main-trip-purposes-by-type/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers... -> majority personal/leisure But please, tell me exactly how commuters somehow are the primary users of both air travel and HSR.
- 23B1 3y agoYou've confused ticket volume with profits.
- mynameisvlad 3y agoYou’ve confused profits with revenue. You asked for most revenue, not most profit. Ticket volume directly correlates, especially when one source accounts for 80% of the volume. But I’m sure you have sources for your moved goalposts, right? Please, show me how commutes are the most profitable. Or most revenue. Or literally anything where they are considered “most” when it comes to air or HSR. Once again, it’s ok to say you’re wrong about something. Doubling down by constantly moving the goalposts is probably the most idiotic way to make your point.
- 23B1 3y agoAbout 3/4 of all domestic airline profits are accounted for by business travel. You are bad at this.